Hypothetical question regarding SSE/FFL

[keenkeen]

We just had an inspection, our first with DOJ. Boss accidentally dicked up a DROS for an off-roster gun that was bought out of state by the customer. Thru his "not totally computer savvy" methods, ended up DROSing it "C&R" because there was no other way he could find to enter the gun information.

Didn't realize that used hanguns are subject to the roster without one of the exemptions.

In the eyes of DOJ this is no trivial matter, and we were told that the gun would be collected from the buyer. Not good....

Had we done this on purpose, it's grounds for losing a license.

We were also told by DOJ that they are following SSEs VERY CLOSELY. He did not really comment on the legality, but indicated that those FFLs that do them, had better not get caught UNDOING them.

I'd like more information, but it pretty much scared us off trying to do any SSEs.

CM

Your DOJ inspector sounds typical...SSE is allowed as described in the sticky as of today. They don't like it so they float the FUD and see if they can buffalo FFLs into not doing them.

That being said, based on the story above it sounds like your boss needs to figure out how to do the basics before moving on to services like SSE handgun transfers.

[keenkeen]

OP is now running scared...editing the OP and deleting subsequent posts...the black helicopters have arrived.

[Colonel Monk]

Your DOJ inspector sounds typical...SSE is allowed as described in the sticky as of today. They don't like it so they float the FUD and see if they can buffalo FFLs into not doing them.

That being said, based on the story above it sounds like your boss needs to figure out how to do the basics before moving on to services like SSE handgun transfers.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Sounds like a legal loophole that they don't like, but are at present unable to affect.

I will have to research it in more detail.

Well, you're right, but that's why I'm here (part-time) is to keep paperwork clean. We are still learning, as most starter-FFLs do. Won't be boss for much longer, we are entering the planning phase for our shops and he has realized that he needs me to keep out of jail and I won't do it for simple pay.

I was suprised to hear that DOJ would be sending someone to collect that weapon. Seeing how it would be exempt via PPT we were gobsmacked that it needed to be on the list.

Since the company is not in business, I guess they never will be from here forward.....

CM

[Mrs Rabbit]

We just had an inspection, our first with DOJ. Boss accidentally dicked up a DROS for an off-roster gun that was bought out of state by the customer. Thru his "not totally computer savvy" methods, ended up DROSing it "C&R" because there was no other way he could find to enter the gun information.

Didn't realize that used hanguns are subject to the roster without one of the exemptions.

In the eyes of DOJ this is no trivial matter, and we were told that the gun would be collected from the buyer. Not good....

Had we done this on purpose, it's grounds for losing a license.

We were also told by DOJ that they are following SSEs VERY CLOSELY. He did not really comment on the legality, but indicated that those FFLs that do them, had better not get caught UNDOING them.

I'd like more information, but it pretty much scared us off trying to do any SSEs.

CM

We did our 1st inspection right before opening, hoping this keeps me off the radar for a while. The agents were cool and pointed out 3 things they are watching for pretty closely:
1- SSE's
2- High capacity magazine 'rebuild' kits
3- Law Enforcement buying multiple off roster in any regularity.

[Colonel Monk]

We did our 1st inspection right before opening, hoping this keeps me off the radar for a while. The agents were cool and pointed out 3 things they are watching for pretty closely:
1- SSE's
2- High capacity magazine 'rebuild' kits
3- Law Enforcement buying multiple off roster in any regularity.

Exactly!

I've been meaning to post a write-up about our inspection, I'll try to finish it tomorrow. We have been in biz for 2.5 years, we were suprised it took so long to get DOJ over there...

Anyway, those were the 3 things he said were heavily on the radar. not *really* sure what that means - if it's legal then it's legal, right? Or not...

Our plan is to not do those things with regularity. I won't say never, because I don't believe in black/white for everything....

If anyone has ever been hassled for SSE I'd like to know what happened and why..

CM

[kemasa]

I was suprised to hear that DOJ would be sending someone to collect that weapon. Seeing how it would be exempt via PPT we were gobsmacked that it needed to be on the list.

The problem is that it was NOT a PPT, which makes it not legal (until and unless the lawsuit win in getting the list tossed out).

There is also the BATF issues with SSE with regards to manufacturing, which is unclear, at best.

[Colonel Monk]

The problem is that it was NOT a PPT, which makes it not legal (until and unless the lawsuit win in getting the list tossed out).

There is also the BATF issues with SSE with regards to manufacturing, which is unclear, at best.

Indeed, you are correct.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, but I think since we really tried to do everything else right, this will end in leniency.

I'm sure the customer will be madder than a hornet, and that really sucks as I'm sure in some circles our reputation will be besmirched. But in the end, it's the state of CA doing the screwing. Only thing he can blame us with is doing the DROS wrong. He'd have been angry at us no matter what, since had we known we couldn't DROS the weapon he would have had to find a way to sell it to get his ducketts back.

Lose, lose, lose. Everybody loses.

CM

[kemasa]

Hmmmm, it is not really the state of CA doing the screwing, except in terms of the law. In this case, a mistake was made and the law was not followed. To blame CA in this case is much like blaming the police for getting a speeding ticket.

Yes, the customer would have been upset if they could not get it transferred, but it much worse that the transfer was done and now he might have to give it back. I suspect it is used now as well. If you can find a place to convert it properly to a Single Shot, then he would be able to get it back.

For some strange reason the bain of my existence is the M57. Many places claim that it is a C&R, but that is only if it was made over 50 years ago, but many of those were not. Many places are selling them claiming that it is a C&R when that is not the case. The selling FFL is not happy to learn that it is not actually a C&R and can't understand why they were told it was.

[Colonel Monk]

You misunderstand me. I'm not blaming the state for anything but the law, I sure don't blame them for our screw up.

I may like to blame them though for not better explaining the entire CFD process, in laymens' terms, with examples of whats right and what's wrong instead of expecting us all to be lawyers to interpret the law. They've made it nebulous on purpose, so we CAN blame them for that.

We would much rather have caught this up front and saved the customer's money. He may be a jerk but having him lose like this will only hurt us.

FYI, the gun is used and old. Were it something recent, I suppose we'd never have assumed we could sell it not being on the list.

Anyway, chalking it up to ignorance and inexperience, it sure won't happen again and I'm hoping that by posting the details here it will save someone else from having the same problem.

CM

[kemasa]

You said:

But in the end, it's the state of CA doing the screwing.

Being a FFL is complicated, to say the least, especially when you consider all the laws that you have to know and follow, including sales tax issues. That is the responsibility of the person who owns the business. The government is not going to teach a class for every business, nor for any business.

I don't think that they made it nebulous on purpose, that is just the way the government does things (elected idiots, etc.).

If a FFL does something because they don't understand what they are doing, then it is their fault. Yes, the laws are often hard to understand, as well as all the policies, but if you don't understand then you need to get help or not do it.

In this case, the firearm was not on the certified list and was not exempt, that is pretty clear. It is not the fault of the government if a FFL just attempts to find a way to get around things instead of understanding that the firearm can not be transferred. The bottom line is that if you don't know, don't do it and find out what the answer is.

[Colonel Monk]

Ok, have it your way then.

I think you'd find many people in disagreement with you that the laws are purposely vague.

[kemasa]

It the laws were purposely vague, that would mean that they gave enough thought to do that, but based on what I have seen, I don't think that they put much thought into anything they do. I think you are giving them far more credit then they deserve.

[kemasa]

It the laws were purposely vague, that would mean that they gave enough thought to do that, but based on what I have seen, I don't think that they put much thought into anything they do. I think you are giving them far more credit then they deserve.